In two recent decisions, California courts have reinforced the notion that wage and hour issues can subject California employers to substantial liability. In a closely watched case, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that an employee pursuing state law claims for meal and break periods missed during his employment had three (3) years to file a claim for the “additional hour of pay” remedy provided by California Labor Code § 226.7(b). Murphy v. Cole Productions, Inc., 2007 Cal. Lexis 3596 (April 16, 2007). The California Supreme Court, deciding a case that had split the appellate courts, concluded that the additional hour of pay provided for by California Labor Code §226.7(b) was a “wage,” thereby subject to a three-year statute of limitations and not a “penalty” which would have been subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the California Supreme Court held that a litigant could raise an issue in the trial court that he had not pursued before the Labor Commissioner in a “Berman Hearing.” In another set-back for California employers, the Court of Appeals held that the prompt payment provisions of the California Labor Code applied to both non-exempt and exempt employees. On-line Power Inc. v. Mazur, 07 C.D.O.S. 4134 (Cal. Ct. App., April 17, 2007).